Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 09/28/2026 2:40:53 PM PDT by DFG
The Supreme Court on Monday announced that Justice Samuel Alito will not continue to participate in Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a significant dispute that will be argued in just one week, on Monday, Oct. 5, the first day of the 2026-27 term.
Scott Harris, the clerk of the Supreme Court, revealed Alito’s last-minute recusal in a short letter to advocates involved in the case. Harris’ note does not provide an explanation for the decision, saying simply that “Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate.”
In Suncor Energy, the court is considering the use of state-level tort claims to hold oil and gas companies financially liable for their alleged role in exacerbating climate change. The case involves officials in the Boulder, Colorado, area, but it is likely to have nationwide ramifications, because similar lawsuits have been filed in states across the country.
In May, a coalition of left-leaning watchdog groups urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate Alito’s involvement in the dispute, contending that his “substantial holdings in individual oil and gas companies,” among other issues, would “undermin[e] public confidence in the impartiality of the Court.” They stated that Alito had “previously recused from considering a petition brought by” the same companies involved in Suncor Energy. “There is no apparent reason for this change in Justice Alito’s recusal practices, and Alito provided no statement justifying his failure to recuse,” the groups wrote.
At the time, a Supreme Court spokeswoman told NBC News that “Justice Alito does not have a financial interest in any party” and that he had been advised that “recusal is not required” by the Supreme Court’s legal counsel.
Under the Supreme Court’s code of conduct, which the justices issued in November 2023, justices are required to recuse themselves from “a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The code defines this as a situation in which “an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” The code of conduct notes that this includes cases in which a justice “has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding.”
Justices are not required to explain why they are recusing themselves, although they sometimes do, especially when the recusal stems from “prior … judicial service” – that is, the justice worked on the case at an earlier point in the proceedings.
Nevertheless, the lack of explanation in Monday’s letter is still somewhat notable given the amount of detail provided when Harris announced in January – less than a week before oral argument – that Alito would not continue to participate in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, a dispute over the circumstances in which a federal contractor can transfer a case from state to federal court that also involved oil and gas companies. Harris pointed to Alito’s “financial interest in ConocoPhillips, the parent corporation for Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company.” Harris explained that “Justice Alito initially decided not to recuse because on June 2, 2025 Burlington was dismissed as a petitioner in this Court under Rule 46.1 after Burlington advised the Court by letter that it was ‘withdrawing’ from the petition and that ‘neither Burlington Resources nor ConocoPhillips will be a party to (or have any other involvement in) the above-referenced case.’ Later briefing, however, noted that Burlington remained a party in the district court.”
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
He could just sell his position and buy it back later.
That “Loquacious-Non-Biologist” Justice never recuses herself, although she frequently should do so.
I don’t want to either cause arguing with dumbasses is hard. Especially when they are unable to reason.
How the heck does something that kookie get all the way to the Supreme Court?
I’m amazed that one of these cases ever made it to the SC. Maybe because they want to put an end to nuisance cases like this once and for all. They have filed everywhere and routinely thrown out, but this one is from Colorado, where I guess anything is possible.
Ping, CFW.
Can you help explain?
Ketanji should recuse herself from every case. She’s just too stupid to rule.
Bag of hammers.
Box of doorknobs.
Bucket of rocks.
How did Kentaji ever move on from preschool?!
Disgraceful cowardice.
I don’t know the details of this case but I’m sad to lose one of the Justices that can be counted on to get it right.
I am sure Alito thinks he is being magnanimous and all that while we could get screwed by the left and their man-made climate change nonsense.
Climate change itself is real and has been happening every since this planet was formed. The argument that man is causing it in any meaningful way is not supported by science.
The fiction of “climate change” MUST be adjudicated!
Hopefully, reason, logic and common sense will prevail!
The climate has been changing for millions of years, without human intervention.
BFD, IMHO!
Spring and Fall are nice every year — Summer and Winter have weather, every year!
Since time immemorial!
BFD!
Last time I checked, Boulder CO has no oil reserves.
They are all to the east of Boulder.
So does this mean that, at best, It’ll be a spl it decision?
More integrity in his little finger than most of his fellow jurists.
So who wins if it’s 4 to 4?
She was eating all the crayons and paste. They had to advance her to get her out of the classroom.
That's my guess.
No one. The prior court ruling appealed would stand.
We had a number of those the last year of Obama being in office when there were 8 justices.
Right so what was the prior court ruling...who wins?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.